DoD ending support to CIA CT Missions

[SierraWave]

Saw this on CNN yesterday:

Pentagon planning to withdraw support for most CIA counter-terror missions

The US Department of Defense is planning to withdraw most support for CIA counter-terror missions by the beginning of next year, in a move expected to have a broad effect on the scope of the intelligence agency's paramilitary operations, a senior defense official and former senior administration official with direct knowledge of the move told CNN.

Acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller informed CIA Director Gina Haspel of the decision in a letter this week.

The US military provides a wide range of support to CIA paramilitary operations, including air transportation, logistics and medical evacuation. The changes, which will take place by January 5, involve returning DOD personnel detailed to the CIA and some military equipment, including Predator drones.

"The Department of Defense routinely provides logistical and other support to U.S. Government departments and agencies around the world. This support is provided in accordance with the Economy Act, and other applicable law. As a responsible actor, the Department has taken a look to better align its allocation of resources with the 2018 National Defense Strategy's shift to great power competition," Defense Department spokesperson Lt. Col. Uriah L. Orland said in a statement later Thursday.

While they note that Biden's administration plans on reversing this, it seems like a bit of a head-scratcher. I know we are moving to great power competition but it seems strange to gimp intelligence efforts against CT targets in this way.

 

[AWP]

Could be for a number of reasons. Decreasing budgets? Reprioritization of low-density, high-demand resources? Some of those missions are moving from the CIA to JSOC? Politics?

Without context the story is a bit sensationalist.

 

[Marauder06]

Very interesting. I wonder how much things will change in practice.

 

[SierraWave]

NY Times has a bit more detail in its version:

Pentagon Weighs Sharp Drawback in Support for C.I.A.

 

[DA SWO]

Who pays for the assets? DoD or CIA?

 

[SierraWave]

Who pays for the assets? DoD or CIA?

That's a great question, one that isn't answered in the article. I'd imagine the answer is probably not public, or not meant to be public.

 

[ThunderHorse]

I know I write "But" as the start to a lot of sentences...yet, I don't see how this dude's article made it past the copy editor. I'd get murdered by my English professor for some these sentences. But I found this interesting.

But other changes being considered would be far broader and more consequential, making it harder for the agency to work out of military bases, use the Defense Department’s medical evacuation abilities or conduct covert drone strikes targeting terrorists in hot spots around the world.

Former officials cautioned that President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. could immediately reverse any changes once he takes office next month.

Yep, Biden will return to the practice of extra-judicial droning. Someone tell me how that helps this country vs, you know, peace agreements (which the Democrats will get in the way of I'm sure).

 

[Locksteady]

Yep, Biden will return to the practice of extra-judicial droning. Someone tell me how that helps this country vs, you know, peace agreements (which the Democrats will get in the way of I'm sure).

 

[Ranger Psych]

You can talk shit about droning that fucker when you also quote the statistics of NEW iranian designed produced and shipped to AQ/etc munitions and EFP's that killed our fucking guys in Iraq.

 

[Locksteady]

You can talk shit about droning that fucker when you also quote the statistics of NEW iranian designed produced and shipped to AQ/etc munitions and EFP's that killed our fucking guys in Iraq.

You misfired on that one, completely.

The clip was a direct answer to his question about how droning helps the country.

 

[Ranger Psych]

You misfired on that one, completely.

The clip was a direct answer to his question about how droning helps the country.

Maybe posting context when you throw up a video might be helpful in determining intent, else I can just, ya know, read it how many will?

 

[Locksteady]

Maybe posting context when you throw up a video might be helpful in determining intent, else I can just, ya know, read it how many will?

That was the whole point of placing the quote below directly above the clip and bolding out the relevant comment it addresses.

Yep, Biden will return to the practice of extra-judicial droning. Someone tell me how that helps this country vs, you know, peace agreements (which the Democrats will get in the way of I'm sure).

I hear your point, though, and don't see any harm in adding a few words just to be sure.

 

[ThunderHorse]

I hear your point, though, and don't see any harm in adding a few words just to be sure.

Generally speaking, President Obama basically normalized extra-judicial droning of folks that would not normally be targeted by the DoD. Most of his drone strikes were conducted by CIA assets. Drone strikes a war, against a true enemy is one thing. Sulemani had been on our hit list for almost a decade. I'm talking run of the mil drone strikes here. Do they actually help us? (probably, maybe, no one knows)

Obama’s Final Drone Strike Data

 

[Locksteady]

Hey @ThunderHorse.

My quote you responded was actually directed to @Ranger Psych to show the context he requested from my first post.

I in no way agree with your point, because drone strikes have proven valuable, and they certainly aren't mutually exclusive to peace agreements.

Generally speaking, President Obama basically normalized extra-judicial droning of folks that would not normally be targeted by the DoD. Most of his drone strikes were conducted by CIA assets. Drone strikes a war, against a true enemy is one thing. Sulemani had been on our hit list for almost a decade. I'm talking run of the mil drone strikes here. Do they actually help us? (probably, maybe, no one knows)

Obama’s Final Drone Strike Data

You're not illustrating anything that moves the needle on the clear value of drone strikes that you questioned in your original statement.

Additionally, President Trump is not suddenly a victim to whatever former President Obama 'normalized' during his administration, particularly given Trump's penchant for abjectly doing the opposite and even reversing strides made by Obama in even the smallest areas with which he doesn't agree.

POTUS not only cosigned Obama's approach; he launched more drone strikes than Obama's entire 8-year presidency in less than 2 years.
Obama specifically shifted authority for drone strike authority away from CIA and to DoD for the sake of transparency and accountability (DoD already had to follow the reporting requirements that CIA was now being asked to make). Instead of maintaining or continuing that trajectory towards responsible oversight and transparency, President Trump reversed that important measure by granting independent drone strike powers back to the CIA, thereby further expanding drone use while removing interagency approval requirements.

If that wasn't enough, he also deliberately removed significant layers of accountability by removing the casualty reporting requirement instituted by the Obama administration. This measure previously served to provide oversight to the public while buffering against attacks on national reputation by international political enemies who took advantage of the lack of transparency to wildly exaggerate the extent of collateral damage incurred by the strikes.

Thus, if you are supportive of drone strikes and the expansion (rather than restriction) of their use, then POTUS' policies largely should be a welcome relief. However, if you are critical of the usage of drone strikes (and the extent to which the Obama administration pursued them), then you'd be out of excuses for not directing the same (and more) criticism towards the Trump administration, because the primary things POTUS disagreed with and removed were the stopgaps and restrictions Obama deliberately put in place to prevent its abuse, non-accountability, and further expansion.

 

[Kraut783]

"Obama deliberately put in place to prevent its abuse, non-accountability"

really? I think Obama knowingly used a drone strike to kill a U.S. citizen in a non-combat theatre...violating the citizens right to due process.

Drones strikes used in a combat theatre are justified and merely another arrow in the quiver.

 

[Locksteady]

"Obama deliberately put in place to prevent its abuse, non-accountability"

really? I think Obama knowingly used a drone strike to kill a U.S. citizen in a non-combat theatre...violating the citizens right to due process.

Drones strikes used in a combat theatre are justified and merely another arrow in the quiver.

When are you assuming the measures I am referencing were put into place, and what kinds of events do you think inspired Obama to make those changes, along with stricter targeting guidelines that factored in collateral damage potential (which POTUS has reversed), in the first place ?

 

[Kraut783]

My example is not what inspired Obama to make those changes...and you know that.

The sloppiness in the use of drones is on both DOD and CIA hands has produced issues of collateral damage, which caused the overview and restrictions....

 

[Locksteady]

My example is not what inspired Obama to make those changes...and you know that.

The sloppiness in the use of drones is on both DOD and CIA hands has produced issues of collateral damage, which caused the overview and restrictions....

The example you provided opens up a controversial decision made by Obama, and is one of the many kinds of collateral damage events I mentioned above that contributed to inspiring the changes.

The example doesn't do the work of disproving one of the purposes of Obama instituting more oversight over the entire process, which seems to be the only point you're nitpicking.

In Awlaki's case, DoJ already concluded that the killing was justified, since he had been identified by the IC as a terrorist leader whose capture was in no way feasible.

 

[Gunz]

Who pays for the assets? DoD or CIA?

I would think whomever has the designated command over a particular operation. The CIA operates under Title 50 of the US Code; the military/SOF under Title 10. Without getting into some of the legal-ese of that arrangement, the Bin Laden raid--for example--was funded by and led by CIA under Title 50 authorization. I would also presume that some of these funding decisions would depend on which Congressional Committee is overseeing these actions.

The articles suggest to me a general down-sizing by DoD. If it's put into effect and Biden doesn't rescind it, my question is, does CIA go back to basics with regard to paramilitary operations? In other words go back to Case and SAD officers developing paramilitary capabilities with foreign personnel under contract, and CIA expanding its own support elements.

 

[Teufel]

I would think whomever has the designated command over a particular operation. The CIA operates under Title 50 of the US Code; the military/SOF under Title 10. Without getting into some of the legal-ese of that arrangement, the Bin Laden raid--for example--was funded by and led by CIA under Title 50 authorization. I would also presume that some of these funding decisions would depend on which Congressional Committee is overseeing these actions.

The articles suggest to me a general down-sizing by DoD. If it's put into effect and Biden doesn't rescind it, my question is, does CIA go back to basics with regard to paramilitary operations? In other words go back to Case and SAD officers developing paramilitary capabilities with foreign personnel under contract, and CIA expanding its own support elements.

Led by the CIA probably. Funded by them as well? Probably not.